The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Rules
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234
INTRODUCER: Rules Committee; Judiciary Committee; and Senator Polsky and others
SUBJECT: Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony
DATE: February 8, 2024 REVISED:
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Davis Cibula JU Fav/CS
2. Cellon Stokes CJ Favorable
3. Davis Twogood RC Fav/CS
Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Technical Changes
I. Summary:
CS/CS/SB 234 amends s. 905.27, F.S., that generally prohibits the disclosure of testimony or
evidence received by a grand jury. There are currently three exceptions to this general
prohibition: ascertaining whether the testimony is consistent with the testimony given by a
witness before the court, determining whether a witness is guilty of perjury, or furthering justice.
The bill amends the third exception of “furthering justice” by expanding that concept to include
furthering a public interest when the disclosure of testimony is requested by the media or an
interested person. The testimony may be disclosed if:
 The subject of the grand jury inquiry is deceased;
 The grand jury inquiry is related to criminal or sexual activity between a subject of the grand
jury investigation and a person who was a minor at the time;
 The testimony was previously disclosed by a court order; and
 The state attorney is provided notice of the request.
Even if these conditions are met, the court may limit the disclosure of testimony, which may
include redacting parts of the testimony.
The bill also adds the custodian of a grand jury record to the list of persons in statute who may
not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before a grand jury or disclose other evidence
received by the grand jury.
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 2
The bill reenacts s. 905.17(1) and (2), F.S.
The Office of the State Courts Administrator expects a minimal fiscal impact to the State Court
System from this bill. See Section V. Fiscal Impact Statement.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2024.
II. Present Situation:
The Grand Jury
“There is a tradition in the United States, a tradition that is “older than our Nation itself,” that
proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secret. … The rule of secrecy, however, is
not without exceptions.”1
Background
The state court system has two types of juries: grand juries and petit juries. While a petit jury,
also known as a trial jury, weighs evidence and returns a verdict of guilt or innocence after
hearing from both sides, a grand jury does not hear from both sides. A grand jury only hears
witnesses presented by a state attorney and determines whether there is sufficient evidence to
formally indict, or charge, an accused person with a crime.2 In other words, the grand jury
initiates the criminal prosecution.3
The modern grand jury is rooted in ancient tradition. It originated in England centuries ago and
was brought to this country by the early colonists. A grand jury was formally recognized in the
Magna Carta in 1215 but can be traced even earlier to 997 A.D., when an Anglo-Saxon king,
unfortunately named “Ethelred the Unready,” tasked an investigative body to perform “its duty
by accusing no innocent person and sheltering no guilty one.”4
The State Constitution
According to the State Constitution, no one may be tried for a capital crime, a crime punishable
by death, unless he or she is indicted by a grand jury.5 This is the only instance in which a grand
jury indictment is required. For all other crimes, the state attorney may initiate criminal charges.
1
CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Aronberg, 360 So. 3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (quoting
In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997)).
2
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, Chapter 30 Florida Grand Jury
Handbook.
3
Gregg D. Thomas, Carol Jean LoCicero, and Linda R. Norbut, The Florida Bar, The Reporters’ Handbook on Law-Related
Topics: The Grand Jury (Revised Aug. 1, 2020) https://www.floridabar.org/news/resources/rpt-hbk/#1619193085264-
69d9d83a-2799.
4
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, supra note 2.
5
FLA. CONST. art. I, s. 15(a). The full text of section 15 is “No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or
indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by
the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.”
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 3
Composition and Investigative Power
A grand jury is composed of at least 15 and no more than 21 citizens who have been summoned
and empaneled by a circuit court judge.6,7 In order to return an indictment, at least 12 grand
jurors must agree.8 Although the grand jury is considered an agency of the circuit court, it works
separately and independently from the court.9
To aid a grand jury in its broad power of investigation, it is given the authority to subpoena
witnesses through the state attorney.10 While grand juries primarily focus on capital cases, they
may also be used to investigate controversies involving the alleged illegal acts of public
officials.11
The Work of the Grand Jury
Secrecy
Grand jury evidence is rarely, if ever, disclosed to the public. By shielding the grand jury’s work
from public scrutiny, grand jurors can speak freely with one another, witnesses who appear may
speak openly without fear of being identified, a potential defendant who is not aware of the
proceedings is prevented from destroying evidence that could be damaging, and the reputation of
a potential defendant who is not indicted is not damaged. The majority of a grand jury’s work is
focused on listening to witnesses and deciding whether the evidence presented justifies an
indictment. For the proceedings to function as they are designed, it is essential that the
proceedings are kept secret. Section 905.24, F.S., states:
Grand jury proceedings are secret, and a grand juror or an interpreter
appointed pursuant to s. 90.6063(2) shall not disclose the nature or
substance of the deliberations or vote of the grand jury.
Consistently and similarly applying the need for secrecy, s. 905.25, F.S., states:
A grand juror shall not be permitted to state or testify in any court how she
or he or any other grand juror voted on any matter before them or what
opinion was expressed by herself or himself or any other grand juror about
the matter.
Who May Attend a Grand Jury Session
To underscore the importance of secrecy, the statutes provide the limited number and specific
persons who may be present during a session. No person may be present at the grand jury
sessions except:
 The witness under examination;
 One attorney who represents the witness and advises and consults the witness;
6
Section 905.01(1), F.S.
7
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, supra note 2.
8
Section 905.23, F.S.
9
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, supra note 2.
10
Section 905.185, F.S.
11
Thomas, et al., supra at note 3.
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 4
 The state attorney and her or his assistant state attorneys;
 The court reporter or stenographer; and
 The interpreter.12
No one is allowed to be present while the grand jurors are deliberating or voting, except an
interpreter who may be present after he or she swears to refrain from making any personal
interjections and who also commits to uphold the secrecy of the proceeding.13
Confidential Nature of Notes and Transcripts
The notes, records, and transcripts of the stenographer or court reporter are filed with the clerk
who is charged with keeping them in a sealed container that is not subject to public inspection.
They are confidential and exempt from the disclosure requirements of the public records laws,
and may be released by the clerk only upon the request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury
or upon order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27, F.S.14
Grand Jury Testimony May Not Be Disclosed
Section 905.27(1), F.S., prohibits a grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, reporter,
stenographer, interpreter, or any other person who appears before the grand jury from disclosing
the testimony of a witness who was examined before the grand jury or any other evidence
received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of:
 Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the
court;
 Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury; or
 Furthering justice.15
Section 905.27(2), F.S., states that it is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast,
disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, or knowingly to cause, or permit to be
published, broadcast, disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person, in any manner
whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, except when the
testimony is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding.
When the court orders the disclosure of the grand jury testimony for use in a criminal case it may
be disclosed:
 To the prosecuting attorney in the court where the case is pending.
 By the prosecuting attorney to his or her assistants, associates, and employees.
 To the defendant.
 To the defendant’s attorney.
 To the defendant’s attorney to his or her legal associates and employees.16
12
Section 905.17(1), F.S.
13
Section 905.17(3), F.S.
14
Section 905.17(1), F.S.
15
Section 905.27(1), F.S.
16
Section 905.27(2)(a), F.S.
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 5
When the court orders the disclosure of the grand jury testimony for use in a civil case, it may be
disclosed to all parties to the case and their attorneys, and by the attorneys to their legal
associates and employees.17
The unlawful disclosure of grand jury testimony is a first degree misdemeanor and constitutes
criminal contempt of court.18
Jeffrey Epstein Grand Jury Testimony, 2006
In 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was investigated by the Palm Beach Police Department for allegedly
sexually abusing five young girls, all under the age of 16 years, at his mansion. In addition,
several other young girls who were not yet 18 years old also alleged that they were sexually
abused by Jeffrey Epstein at his mansion.19
The Palm Beach Police Department contacted State Attorney Barry Krischer and asked that he
charge Mr. Epstein with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and one count of
lewd and lascivious molestation. If convicted of those charges, Mr. Epstein would have been sent
to prison for decades. Instead of charging Jeffrey Epstein as the police recommended, State
Attorney Krischer chose an unusual legal maneuver and presented the case to a grand jury. The
grand jury returned only one charge, that of soliciting a prostitute. Mr. Epstein was arrested after
the indictment and charged with one felony count of soliciting a prostitute.20
According to the Palm Beach Post, this was the first time a sex crime case was presented to a
grand jury by State Attorney Krischer’s office. Although 13 teenage girls gave virtually identical
accounts of their interactions with Mr. Epstein, the state attorney’s office called only one 14-
year-old girl to testify before the grand jury.21
Litigation
Trial Court
In November 2019, The Palm Beach Post sued the then current State Attorney, who was no
longer Mr. Krischer, and the Clerk and Comptroller of Court in an effort to obtain a court order
to unseal the grand jury proceedings and reveal why the grand jury returned only minimal
charges. Because the grand jury’s proceedings are private, The Post relied on s. 905.27(1), F.S.,
which allows a judge to disclose testimony for the purpose of “furthering justice.”
17
Section 905.27(2)(b), F.S.
18
Section 905.27 (4) and (5), F.S. This first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and a $5,000
fine. Sections 775.082 and 775.083, F.S.
19
Holly Baltz, THE PALM BEACH POST, Why Was Jeffrey Epstein in 2006 Charged Only with Picking Up a Prostitute? Where
We Stand (Feb. 9, 2023) https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2023/02/09/palm-beach-post-lawsuit-to-unseal-jeffrey-
epstein-grand-jury-records/69867241007/.
20
Id.
21
Jane Musgrave, John Pacenti, and Lulu Ramadan, THE PALM BEACH POST, How the Epstein Saga Could’ve Been Ended
Years Ago: To His First Prosecutors, Victims Were Prostitutes (Nov. 20, 2019).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-saga-couldve-been-ended-attorney-barry-
krischer/4237757002/.
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 6
The Palm Beach Post, through its attorney, argued in part:
Access to the grand jury materials will allow the public to determine
whether the grand jury process, and the secrecy that comes with it, was used
to further justice or, instead, operated to shield Epstein and his co-
conspirators from the consequences of their criminal activities.22
In December 2021, the circuit judge determined that the court’s “inherent authority” had its
boundaries and its authority to release the records was constrained by s. 905.27, F.S.
Accordingly, the publisher’s access to the grand jury materials was denied and the documents
and records would not be released.
In the final order the trial judge said:
Perhaps the circumstances presented above will induce the Legislature to
amend section 905.27 to grant the courts additional authority or leeway in
ruling on unique cases such as this one.23
The Palm Beach Post appealed the ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Appellate Court
The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a decision on May 10, 2023. The appellate court held
that the trial court was required to determine whether the disclosure of the requested grand jury
proceedings would have furthered justice. In support of its conclusion, and after citing related
cases on point, the court stated:
We extract from these decisions the court’s inherent authority to disclose
grand jury materials despite the traditional rule of secrecy. In fact, this is
contemplated and supported by section 905.27’s language.24
The appellate court reversed the case and remanded it for further proceedings. The trial court was
directed to conduct an in-camera inspection of the materials and decide whether disclosure of the
grand jury materials would further justice. The trial court was instructed to evaluate the materials
guided by the following non-exhaustive criteria cited in an earlier federal decision dealing with
the disclosure of materials reviewed by a federal grand jury:
 The identity of the party seeking disclosure;
 Whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the government opposes the
disclosure;
 Why disclosure is being sought in the particular case;
22
CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post, v. Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Florida; Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach, County, Florida, Motion of Plaintiff for
Summary Judgment, p. 3 (April 22, 2021).
23
CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post, v. Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Florida; Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach, County, Florida, Final Judgment, p. 12 (Dec. 20,
2021).
24
CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Aronberg, 360 So. 3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
BILL: CS/CS/SB 234 Page 7
 What specific inf